Skip to content

NOAA’s Tornado Fraud

January 15, 2017

By Paul Homewood


According to NOAA, the number of tornadoes has been steadily growing since the 1950s, despite a drop in numbers in the last five years.

They show the above chart prominently in their Tornadoes – Annual 2016 Report.

However, they know full well that it is meaningless to compare current data with the past, as they explain themselves in the section Historical Records and Trends, which is hidden away on their own website:


One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidence of a tornado must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. If a tornado occurs in a place with few or no people, it is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was very sparsely populated during the 20th century.

Much early work on tornado climatology in the United States was done by John Park Finley in his book Tornadoes, published in 1887. While some of Finley’s safety guidelines have since been refuted as dangerous practices, the book remains a seminal work in tornado research. The University of Oklahoma created a PDF copy of the book and made it accessible at John Finley’s Tornadoes (link is external).

Today, nearly all of the United States is reasonably well populated, or at least covered by NOAA’s Doppler weather radars. Even if a tornado is not actually observed, modern damage assessments by National Weather Service personnel can discern if a tornado caused the damage, and if so, how strong the tornado may have been. This disparity between tornado records of the past and current records contributes a great deal of uncertainty regarding questions about the long-term behavior or patterns of tornado occurrence. Improved tornado observation practices have led to an increase in the number of reported weaker tornadoes, and in recent years EF-0 tornadoes have become more prevelant in the total number of reported tornadoes. In addition, even today many smaller tornadoes still may go undocumented in places with low populations or inconsistent communication facilities.

With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.




Of course it is nonsensical to claim that the bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years – there has clearly been a large reduction.

Note as well that they have not even bothered to update the graph for 2015. Could it be they would rather the public did not find out the truth?


Meanwhile, over at the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) you can see that, when allowance is made for changing reporting procedures, last year may well have had the lowest number of tornadoes on record.




The SPC is also part of NOAA, but is the department that actually deals with tornado events and data on a day to day basis. As such, they tend to be more interested in the facts, rather than a political agenda.

While we still await the final numbers and classification for last year, but what we do know is that there was no EF-5. Indeed the last occurrence was the Moore, OK tornado in May 2013.

It is unusual to go nearly four years without one, as there have been 59 since 1953, effectively one a year on average.


The bottom line is that the NOAA headline graph is grossly dishonest. Indeed, if a company published something like that in their Annual Accounts, they would probably end up in jail!


NOAA themselves know all of this full well.

Which raises the question – why are they perpetuating this fraud?

  1. January 15, 2017 7:22 pm

    “Which raises the question – why are they perpetuating this fraud?”
    Isn’t it obvious?
    To convince people who don’t question the figures, that the climate is changing.
    And to ensure funding for climate research and their jobs.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      January 15, 2017 10:07 pm

      “why are they perpetuating this fraud?”

      It enables insurance companies to increase the price of tornado insurance…

  2. January 15, 2017 7:37 pm

    If this were in the UK, they could be reported to the police, who would have to investigate (maybe).

    Note Item (2) From the Fraud Act 2006:

    2Fraud by false representation

    (1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

    (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

    (b)intends, by making the representation—

    (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

    (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

    (2)A representation is false if—

    (a)it is untrue or misleading, and

    (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

    (3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

    (a)the person making the representation, or

    (b)any other person.

    (4)A representation may be express or implied.

    (5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

  3. Steven Mosher permalink
    January 15, 2017 8:27 pm

    So essentially you are arguing that the data need to be adjusted to account for changes in observation practice, and that presenting data that does NOT take account of these changes ( ie raw data ) is fraud.

    Fraud if they adjust or account for changing observation practices
    Fraud if they dont adjust or account for changing observation practices

    • January 15, 2017 9:04 pm

      Stop being such an ass Mr Mosher.

      • mothcatcher permalink
        January 15, 2017 9:22 pm

        Steven M

        You’re a smart guy, and I’ve seen some comments of yours that are really worth making, and points you raise can be pertinent and effective. I have sometimes welcomed your interventions as a means of bringing the conversation back to the real issues.

        So why do you insist on these silly and often rude attempts at ridiculous point-scoring, like some insane proof reader, intent on elevating a spelling mistake into a demolition job on the whole thing? Maybe some anger management classes would help? I understand what you’re getting at, but if you carry on like this, no one will be listening.

        I think you know Zeke H. Take a lesson.

      • AZ1971 permalink
        January 15, 2017 11:19 pm

        Agreed, Mosher is being an ass.

        It’s about putting the data in context. The data is the data … but if the earlier data is sparse, putting a disclaimer in the small print regarding interpretation of that data is tantamount to fraud.

        Think it isn’t?

        Remember that the foam coffee cups used at McDonald’s which resulted in the infamous burning incident actually had a warning regarding the contents being hot printed on it. However, that warning was deemed not in large enough font or color to denote it as a true warning and therefore McDonald’s was held largely accountable. Where is the disclaimer on the NOAA data graphs? There are none. That’s inexcusable for today’s one-click information society.

      • mikewaite permalink
        January 16, 2017 8:32 am

        It is actually an encouraging sign if so eminent a figure as S Mosher is a regular visitor to this site, because here he will and has read about the dismal, and arguably unscrupulous .conduct of the renewables industry in the UK , only permitted because of the obsession with climate change by ill- educated and naive politicians.
        Here he can wonder at the nonsense of a modern economy eschewing reliable gas generation of energy for unreliable wind and , incredibly implausible tidal lagoons , whilst it is simultaneously dismantling its conventional capacity .
        Here he can read about a tidal power station that is now a pile of rust at the bottom of the sea having worked for only 3 months.
        Here he can be told that on a normal , quite mild, winter day the wind and solar are generating only about 8% of the required energy , and , worryingly other sources are reaching their limits . And next week the wind will be less and the cold will intensify .
        That ,SM, is why misrepresentation of climate data is such a danger to people far and wide..

    • January 15, 2017 10:37 pm

      They don’t “adjust” tornado data – they simply use a detrended graph to approximate trends. The original data itself is still all available at the SPC, and there is nothing else.

      The SPC don’t pretend to know how many tornadoes there really were in the past, unlike NOAA pretend to know about temperatures.

      But NOAA know full well that their raw tornado graph is grossly misleading, so why don’t you go and ask them why they still show it?

      • Steven Mosher permalink
        January 17, 2017 10:15 pm

        So raw data is misleading?

      • January 17, 2017 10:34 pm

        SPC accept that making long term comparisons is meaningless because of changes in observation practices.

        Yet NOAA still insist on publishing grossly misleading graphs of tornadoes

        When will you accept this obvious truth?

        BTW- Please do not stoop to calling me stupid names, It just makes you sound rather pathetic.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 18, 2017 1:31 am

        “So raw data is misleading?”

        Mosher, you wouldn’t recognise ‘raw’ data if it ran under your bridge and bit you on your snout.

        So get back to Mannipulating your second-hand dodgy temperature databases with your AlGoreithms, your time is up.

        Suck it up. snowflake.

        “BEST” – best joke yet! I suppose you’ve got a sense of humour, at any rate!

    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 16, 2017 9:43 am

      Moshpit.. always trying to sell the unsellable used car.

      Your life’s work..

      Think about that Mosh !!!

      Rather PATHETIC isn’t it. !

      • Steven Mosher permalink
        January 17, 2017 10:19 pm

        Hey I’m just trying to figure out if you guys worship raw data or not.

        Looks like if you like the answer you want it raw.. and if you dont like the answer even SHOWING the raw data is fraud.

        too fucking funny

        Homeboy says even Showing raw data is fraud.

        Showing it is fraud
        Adjusting it is fraud
        Refusing to share it fraud.

        Jan 21st it’s going to be your fraud.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 18, 2017 1:34 am

        “Jan 21st it’s going to be your fraud.”

        Looks like you’ll be looking for new employment then, Mosher.

        How are you at tossing burgers?

        If you can find anyone to employ you even at that, of course.

    • nightspore permalink
      January 20, 2017 7:11 pm

      It depends on the inferences you want to draw. If you want to claim that the frequency of tornadoes has increased over the past 60 years, then you don’t want to base this on changing standards of measurement, especially if they favor your claim. And if that’s what’s being done, then it seems appropriate to point this out.

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    January 15, 2017 9:42 pm

    Steven Mosher reminds me of a person that repeatedly made the observation that CO₂ in the atmosphere had increased by 40%.
    If one looks at the ppm, whether 350, 400, or 800 — it is still a small amount and the catastrophic aspects thereof are unproven. Seeing 40%, 40%, 40%. . . . 40% for the 700th time got real annoying.
    Perhaps, Steven can say 300 Hail Mary’s and repent. {Maybe you have to be a Catholic!}

    • Tom Dowter permalink
      January 16, 2017 6:38 am

      There are a number of weaknesses in “standard” climate science, but this is not one of them.

      Nowhere in GHG theory do we come across the concentration of CO2 being expressed in parts per million. What matters is the concentration of infrared absorbing gases expressed as the number of molecules per unit volume. The concentration of non-infrared absorbing gases can vary quite widely without affecting the expected warming. Such variation does, however, affect the parts per million concentration quite markedly.

      Trace gases can be very effective. If we replaced the CO2 in the atmosphere with a nerve gas, we would all have been dead long ago!

      • AndyG55 permalink
        January 16, 2017 9:46 am

        ” If we replaced the CO2 in the atmosphere with a nerve gas, we would all have been dead long ago!”

        WOW, can you think of a more MORONIC analogy !! Really.. can you ?

        I bet you have tried.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 16, 2017 11:09 pm

        “Trace gases can be very effective. If we replaced the CO2 in the atmosphere with a nerve gas, we would all have been dead long ago!”

        Wow, Tom!

        If you set light to a straw man as big as that you would very definitely cause global warming.

        I could also observe that if we halved the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, we and practically all other life on the planet would cease to exist too, and it would be equally irrelevant.


      • January 17, 2017 12:21 am

        Tom: PPM is a measure of molecules per unit volume. Is this: “Mixing ratios of trace gases are commonly given in units of parts per million volume ( ppmv or simply ppm), parts per billion volume ( ppbv or ppb), or parts per trillion volume ( pptv or ppt); 1 ppmv = 1×10-6 mol/mol, 1 ppbv = 1×10-9 mol/mol, and 1 pptv = 1×10-12 mol/mol. For example, the present-day CO2 concentration is 365 ppmv (365×10-6 mol/mol).”
        ( from a webpage)

        I don’t understand your objection to ppm.

        As for the reality that small concentrations can be important, yes. However, small concentrations can also be virtually irrelevant. Determining which catagory one is dealing with is very important and often very difficult, especially when dealing with estimated values in a huge, chaotic system.

      • tom0mason permalink
        January 17, 2017 11:10 pm

        OK Tom,
        Have it this way —

        CO2 has changed from 0.0003 to 0.0004 over the past 100 years and absorbs a very, very, very small % of the outgoing radiation. Over the history of the planet CO2 has varied but never in step with temperatures for any appreciable length of time. CO2 has been (according to ice-core measurements) as high as 7,000 ppm of the atmosphere.

        H2O can change from 0.001 to 0.04 in a day and absorbs a vast majority of the outgoing IR spectrum.

        In the entire history of the planet neither H20 or CO2 have ever caused catastrophic global warming.

      • nightspore permalink
        January 20, 2017 7:14 pm

        The concentration of non-infrared absorbing gases can vary quite widely without affecting the expected warming. Such variation does, however, affect the parts per million concentration quite markedly.

        Minor, petty comment: your second sentence is a tautology.

  5. January 15, 2017 11:14 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:

  6. Timo Soren permalink
    January 15, 2017 11:54 pm

    Mosher, your comment belittles yourself. You know very well the options are far more numerous than you state AND your choice of options only supports one of your poorly held positions of gleeful data adjustment.

    You could have instead opted for:
    stating that the data needs to have quality control
    stating that there exist better data sets so that the one being graphed is an
    immensely poor choice
    encouraging research in historical observations that could serve as a proxy

    instead you opted for putting words in someones mouth and being petty.

  7. Athelstan permalink
    January 16, 2017 12:19 am

    Gawd and numbers by dummies, ah well, the North American continent lends itself to creating some prime conditions for long track Tornadoes, the idea that somehow they’re more common now than in the past is fantasy in lala land all over but then, would you expect anything else from an advocacy agency like NOAA?

    Hazard insurance scam………………………….what? Follow the money, always.

  8. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    January 16, 2017 8:38 am

    O/T slightly…BBC R4 this am:

    100 UEA signatories in letter to Mrs May to keep the money rolling in..or similar? Can’t find it on their (BBC) website.

  9. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    January 16, 2017 8:46 am

    And this:

    “Prince Charles writes Ladybird book on climate change”

    • January 16, 2017 9:14 am

      I can’t wait to buy it and read it.

    • January 16, 2017 9:19 am

      They seem to have changed a bit since I was a kid!!

    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 16, 2017 9:48 am

      ““Prince Charles writes Ladybird book on climate change””

      I hear Prince Phlop is a Monty Python fan.

      I’m sure this will be reflected in his little children’s book.

      • January 16, 2017 9:57 am

        It’ll be an adult version, but I suspect so full of inaccuracies that it will be easy to discredit.
        Maybe someone should write a sceptic (accurate) version as an alternative and submit it to the publishers.

    • Green Sand permalink
      January 16, 2017 9:55 am

      God Save the Queen!

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 16, 2017 11:14 pm


  10. January 16, 2017 10:41 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    NOAA TORNADO LIES: Another solid example of why government climate agencies like NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, BoM, MetOffice – run by a handful of activist administrators, are the last places to hear or read the truth on “global warming” aka “climate change”.

    “The bottom line is that the NOAA headline graph is grossly dishonest. Indeed, if a company published something like that in their Annual Accounts, they would probably end up in jail!
    NOAA themselves know all of this full well.
    Which raises the question – why are they perpetuating this fraud?”

    Read all of the excellent deconstruction of yet more NOAA fraud via Paul Homewood here…

  11. CheshireRed permalink
    January 16, 2017 11:06 am

    This sort of ‘report’ is all about the headline. The standard cover story goes out to compliant media – typically Guardian, BBC, Indy, C4, NYT, Washington Post et al, who obligingly copy n paste, whereupon most readers glance at the headline…and move on. But subliminally the message of ‘climate catastrophe’ is reinforced. That’s what they’re after; the relentless drip drip drip of climate doom.

    They reckoned without the power of the internet though, and the election of a certain Mr Trump. Your time’s nearly up, scammers.

  12. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 16, 2017 11:36 am

    If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

  13. January 16, 2017 12:52 pm

    TIP : Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Growth – January 2, 2017 by tonyheller
    “Greenland is blowing away all records for ice growth this winter, having received nearly double the normal amount of snowfall. They have received almost 80% of their normal snowfall less than halfway through the winter season”

  14. tom0mason permalink
    January 17, 2017 1:20 pm

    Maybe twitter could prove useful. As we know Trump reads it, I wonder how aware he is of this issue and the Gavin’s adjustments?

  15. Peter Stokes permalink
    January 25, 2017 12:34 pm

    Gets worse! Daily Telegraph today reporting in Galleries section on Hurricane Gustav flooding Cuba and about to increase to Cat 5 and hit mainland USA next week. Apart from fact that hurricane season ended in November, Hurricane Gustav was in 2008, and is not on the 2016-2020 allocated names list for hurricanes. Maybe the NOAA is reduced to issuing ‘false news’ however ridiculous to further its nefarious ‘aims’!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: